PRACTISING DEMOCRACY THE ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT (OD) WAY IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR GHANA

 Organization Development (OD) is basically a collaborative approach to problem solving and planned change management where the people are facilitated to self-reflect, self-regulate and take control of their own processes and development. Some of the values of OD include, freedom and justice, quality of life, health, human potential, empowerment, growth and excellence.

Democracy as we learnt from President Abraham Lincoln, is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The linkage between OD and Democracy would therefore be using OD as  a reliable tool to achieving Democracy. There is no doubt that the surest way to achieving a representative democracy in Ghana is by making sure Ghanaians are directly participating in governance to achieve the desired standard of living. If the whole purpose of Ghana achieving independence was to self-reflect, self-regulate and take control of its own development then we need to go the OD way.

Let me take this opportunity to highlight certain contemporary challenges Ghana is facing as a country and how an OD approach would have solved or mitigated the issues. First let us go through some underlying concepts in OD to appreciate how the approach works.

 

OD CONCEPTS

·       Strategize Democratically and Implement Autocratically

This basically means when engaging in problem or needs identification, involve those that will be impacted in the outcome. Get the views of all parties or stakeholders at the beginning of the process. Agree on what has to be done and how. Once that is done, do not waiver but be ruthless in the implementation process as agreed so move from the undesired current state we all do not want to the future desired state we all seek. Of course, a review, monitoring and evaluation process could bring all parties back together if the solution is not going as envisaged.

This approach is fundamental but we seem to do reverse thinking. We go to sit in conferences of experts and decide what the issues are. We then consult the parties on how best to implement the decision that has been autocratically taken without their input. At this point all sort of ideas come up with even the decision being questioned and nothing gets done. You will fail, meanwhile the experts have taken their money and gone. This for me is the fundamental flaw in getting results and why most policies, strategic directions and programs look good on paper and also makes sense but do not see the light of day to achieve the desired effect of adding value to our lives.

There is a story of a community that had all the youth every morning going to fetch water in a river about three kilometers away. The authorities decided to solve this problem by providing pipe borne water in the community. On evaluation of the intervention the authorities realized the youth were still going to fetch the water from the river and wondered why the people preferred walking three kilometers to the river. Now they called a meeting of the elders to find out why. The elders told the authorities that they live in single rooms with their children and it is only when they send them in the mornings to the riverside to fetch water that they the parents, husband and wife are able to have sex. They also called the youth to find out why and apparently, the youth also preferred the journey to the riverside because it is the only time they developed relationships with the opposite sex beyond the eyes of the parents. Not that the intervention of the pipe borne water was not good but a clear case of strategizing autocratically without involving the interested parties / stakeholders.    

There is a reason for which the 1992 Constitution has certain entrenched provisions that cannot be changed without directly consulting the people by way of a referendum.

The Problem and Solution Lie with the People

Can one honestly think the community members do not know the issues affecting them and the solutions to them? Do we think the citizenry do not know what they want? One need not have a Masters Degree or Doctorate to know when there is a problem. It takes humility to seek the opinion of people especially when one thinks he/she is an expert and has been paid to provide the solution. Try seeking their opinion and you will be amazed that what you were thinking of is exactly what they have in mind plus more practical solutions specific to the situation since they are in that particular environment.

For effective implementation, it is better the solution comes from the people. Of course the authority or the expert can “facipulate” the process but once the solution is somehow perceived to come from the stakeholders there will be little or no resistance to the implementation and consequently they will not argue with a solution they were part of. It is those close to the problem that have better knowledge of the problem and understanding of the best fit solution.

There is a story of a community, where the Member of Parliament(MP) installed street lights in the market since the people had a night market but the place a bit dark even though they were using lanterns. I bet it was a good intervention but the people continued to use the lanterns under the installed street lights. When asked why they were still using lanterns when the place was bright they said the MP should come and remove the lights, and that they do not want it. What they wanted was a KVIP since at least they have lanterns to sell their goods at night. Of course no one is saying the street lights are not useful but priorities have been wrongly placed and resources not put to a helpful use. The community in this story knew the problems and the solution to it but were never consulted. The bane of political manifestos.

·       No One Argues with Their Own Data

The advantage of getting all interested parties involved in the problem identification and solution process is that people seldom argue with data that they are part of deciding on. Once I am part of the decision making process, not only do I appreciate the problem but I will make the solution work and any other decision that was made by us. I will be committed to the collective decision made hence will not act contrary to it. In effect, I become an ambassador of the decision and a change agent to make sure whatever the program or intervention is, it succeeds.   

·       Leadership is Facilitation and Influence 

Getting results through followers requires some influencing and facilitation skills. This does not necessarily come with positional power though by default people appointed in positions automatically take up a leadership role. Being given positional power does not automatically bestow wisdom and solutions. The citizenry is an invaluable think thank of solutions that have to be used. Get them involved in the initial stages of finding a solution and not as a last resort. They will read into it and hold back their thoughts, watching you from the sidelines till you fail.

Leadership to me is the ability to influence people to be committed and take ownership of the process of achieving a desired goal.  Just show the way, get out of the way and guide the process to achieve the desired results. If you show the way and want to direct how to get there, then be ready to be responsible for the end results. If you want to pay people and do the work yourself too then it is up to you, do not blame anybody.  Give the power to the people and they will give it back to you. Be a facilitator of the process. Getting people involved in decision making is not a weakness but a strength. It gives diversity and perspectives, that you the leader never thought of or envisaged.

·       The Process is as Good as the Content

Whatever you want to achieve or do is the content and it is important, but most important in OD is how you achieve it. OD is more of process oriented than expert oriented. The end does not justify the means because OD is about improving people and systems. The people must be an integral part of solving the problem which is believed to give a more lasting and enduring solution.

Let us now take a look at just four contemporary issues that Ghana faces as a country and how the OD way would have been a better tool in solving it.

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

·       Electoral Commission Directives for 2020 Elections

The Electoral Commission (EC) gave directives as to how it intended to conduct the 2020 elections. This included having a new register, introducing a regional collation center, declaring results within 24 hours, the use of only the Ghana card as proof of citizenship rather than relying  on birth certificate and the old voters card as proof of citizenship. Other rules were made mainly based on the legal mandate given to the Electoral Commission for which the Electoral Commissioner had the positional power to undertake which she did.

At the end of the day the EC’s mandate was executed but a section of the population was not happy with the outcome which caused a lot of apprehension. The EC seems to have broken all the rules of OD. The end goal seemed to be more important than the means in achieving it, hence the end justified the means used. What they wanted to achieve has been achieved which is in their legal power to do so. The content was more important than the process. The leadership of the EC was more of positional power and they had the legal mandate not to necessarily involve the people. Legally, there was no need to facilitate and influence the system for acceptance but this is not the OD way but the legal way hence the challenges.

It was alleged that the EC side stepped the consultative body, the Inter-Party Advisory Committee (IPAC) and therefore strategizing autocratically whilst wanting to implement the decisions democratically with consultation. The EC on the eve of the election directed and excluded the people of SALL to vote and elect a Member of Parliament. The issue with SALL could have been mitigated if at the onset the EC had engaged the people on how to resolve any challenge the EC were having as a result of the new regions. The people might even have accepted the same position the EC wanted to take or jointly the parties could have found a solution. Everybody wants to be heard or be part of a decision that will impact on them. The EC approach during the election was more of I have the legal power and can do whatever I want to do. Yes, you do have the legal mandate but how do you execute it in a more acceptable manner where parties can even agree to disagree but accept the solution. What the EC had to do was the legal way and how it ought to have been done was the OD way. Not doing it the OD way did not make it illegal but now the EC’s credibility is arguably at stake and this could have been avoided.

·       Appointment of MMDCEs

Under article 243(1) of the 1992 Constitution, “There shall be a District Chief Executive for every district who shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of not less than two-thirds majority of members of the Assembly present and voting at the meeting”.

Article 240(2)(e) of the1992 Constitution states: “to ensure the accountability of local government authorities, people in particular local government areas shall, as far as practicable, be afforded the opportunity to participate effectively in their governance”.

The Constitutional provisions above are based on two basic OD concepts. That “no one argues with their data” and secondly, “the problem and solution lie with the people”.

There has been challenges with operationalizing this, where persons nominated by the President have been rejected by the people in the Assembly.

This should not happen if the President allows the people to nominate at least three people for him to consider. The President, then appoints one to present to them as the choice and they then approve. Of course a lot of lobbying can go on in the process. Once the nominations come from the Assembly, the chances of not approving the President’s appointee is negligible. Now it will also be in the interest of the people to make sure the person succeeds, a win-win situation. Leadership is influence and facilitating. This will be the OD way of strategizing democratically and implementing autocratically but our current process is the reverse, the President autocratically appoints by some internal party vetting process and we expect the people to democratically approve. What do we expect?

·       Overhead Foot Bridge on N1 Highway

Overhead bridges were constructed on the N1 highway but was not being used by the people since it was more of an inconvenience to them as to where they had been placed. I am most certain it was based on an engineering or planning principle as to how the bridges must be interspaced etc. The question is, who were the bridges being built for? Were they consulted? Or this was an engineering and planning issue so needed to be solved by the experts. The people start crossing the road from unapproved sections which resulted in accidents and deaths. Another question then is, whose fault is it?

This could have been avoided if the people were engaged in the construction. Strategize with them, even if it means explaining the rationale for the engineering if it still has to be constructed where they are. Once they buy into it, they will be self-regulated by it and also will make sure others use it. Now we autocratically build the overhead foot bridges where we want them and because of the accidents caused by the people crossing the roads, we now go back to engage them to find a solution.

·       Galamsey

Galamsey is said to be derived from the phrase "gather them and sell" by illegally digging small working pits, tunnels, and sluices by hand and is usually by locals who lack employment opportunities. This presupposes that all things being equal this should not cause the type of environmental destruction we are seeing today since this is done  on a micro level. It is however  the complex use of heavy industrial mining equipment which is more of “bulldozersey”  that has given galamsey a bad name now.

Do we honestly think the locals do not know the problem and the solution to the galamsey issue? May be we cannot handle the truth or do not want to hear it. May be the authorities cannot even go and engage the locals because they have lost the moral right to do so now. Do we think the locals want to drink dirty, contaminated water? May be it’s a situation of ‘if you cannot stop them join them or a situation of in the land of fools the wise is the fool’. Devoid of aiding and abetting by the locals for selfish gains, galamsey can be stopped only by the people in the locality.

This starts with the Chiefs, only if they themselves are not involved, it is only then they can get the people to discuss and find a self-regulating solution. Use the database approach of showing them the dangers not only to themselves with respect to their health but the environment, showing them the bleak picture of the impact on their future generations. Use videos, pictures and not only words. Ask them if they like what they see. Now show them a desirable state without galamsey both present and future and let them make a choice. Who would choose an undesirable present state?

There will be the need to provide an alternative employment opportunities or limit them to safer and scientific mining methods on a micro level. If that is the only skill set they have, regulate it and they would not allow entry of the huge machines or industrial type of machinery being used that destroys the environment. Any movement of heavy duty machinery into the area will be resisted by the people. Of course, this OD way will have limitations if there is collaboration and conniving by the chiefs with those using the heavy duty machinery for something that is supposed to be on a micro level.  

CONCLUSION

The limitation of the OD way is that it takes time because of the initial engagements but it gives a lasting solution. The OD way will not only mitigate potential conflict situations but save cost and eventually time especially with implementation. Of course in times of crisis management the OD way will have limitations since one has to fire before aiming and even that the leader must be able to influence acceptance of the process after the effect.

Democracy and OD are intrinsically linked, with democracy being what we want to practice and OD how we want to practice it and I have no doubt we will be able to live happily ever after in our democratic dispensation. The role of the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) is most crucial in this process of getting the people involved.